of .1912, and it" was only on receipt of the letter dated
February 7, 1912, that the plaintiff realized fully howmalicious
and mendacious the defendant was and how totally unfit she
was to be the guardian of the boys.
10. The plaintiff submits that as the guardian of the boys
he is entitled to their custody, and even otherwise, in the
interest of the boys and their moral welfare, the defendant
ought to be compelled‘to give them up to the plaintiff or to
such other person as the Court may think fit.
The plaintiff
sent a notice on the
11th July demanding that the boys
should be brought back to India and replaced under the
guardianship and custody of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff
submits that he had no authority and could not have dele-
gated-his parental rights to the defendant.
Even assuming,
however, that he could do so he was at liberty to revoke it at
any time, especially with a view to promote the moral welfare
of the boys, and that after the receipt of the said letter the
defendant had no authority to keep the boys with herself.
In
answer to the plaintiff's notice the defendant merely acknow-
ledged its" receipt and did nothing more, and the plaintiff
believes that she has left the b0ys in England.
11. The cause of the action arose partly at Adyar in the
years
1910,
1911 and
1912, when the plaintiff discovered
the various matters referred to above in relation to the bring—
ing up of the boys, and lastly on or about July 11, 1912,
when the plaintiff sent a registered. notice demanding delivery
of the minors.
12. The value of the relief for the purposes of jurisdiction
is Rs. 3000.
13. The plaintiff prays for judgment:
22